“Just what will Sony announce at PlayStation Meeting 2013?” is a question almost nobody is asking, because we’re all getting short odds on the answer being “PlayStation 4″.

Sony has announced a big reveal coming 6:00PM PST on February 20. You can sign up for updates via a teaser page.

The last PlayStation Meeting was called to announce the Vita, so if this one’s not the next PlayStation console, it’s going to have to be something really spectacular.

Next-generation hardware announced from Sony and Microsoft are expected this year. Although Sony CEO Kazuo Hirai told press Microsoft could make the first move, sources said Sony wanted to beat Microsoft to the punch, something back up by independent rumours.

The firm has been struggling with financial issues and may need the boost of a new hardware announce to retain stockholder faith. Some sources have suggested the new consoles might ship before the holiday season this year, but bear in mind Sony announced the Vita almost a full year before its launch.

Sony released a teaser trailer to go with the announcement, which is full of abstract shapes. Feel free to speculate on what they might mean and express your disdain for the female sigh at the end.

PlayStation 4: what we think we know

Sony’s next generation PlayStation 4 has generated a number of persistent rumours, many of which have attached the codename Orbis to the device. VG247′s sources suggests the PS4 will have significantly more raw computational power than Durango, Microsoft’s next-generation offering.

The console has been frequently linked to AMD 10 eight-core technology, and is said to have at least 4GB of RAM; internal storage of at least 256GB; and a Blu-ray drive capable of reading discs of up to 100GB of data.

Sony is said to be aiming for an affordable price point and to use the same input and output devices, so you shouldn’t need a fancy new telly. The system’s OS is said to have been heavily revised since PlayStation 3′s XMB, and thanks to 1GB of RAM dedicated to system functions, will allow users to switch in and out of games and system functions fluidly.

Multiple rumours and alleged leaks have backed up these claims.

On the less frequently-cited side, there’s word that Sony may develop a new controller for the console. One whisperer said it might have biometric features. A new social and multiplayer service, BigFest, is expected.

EA said yesterday it has next-generation games in the works, and Heavy Rain developer Quantic Dream recently registered a domain suggesting it has one, too. Mentions of next-generation hardware and games have been turning up on résumés and job advertisements for well over a year now.

Sony shut down production of the PlayStation 2 recently, which is sensible if a new generation of hardware manufacturing is required.

Sony is said to be aiming for an affordable price point and to use the same input and output devices, so you shouldn’t need a fancy new telly. The system’s OS is said to have been heavily revised since PlayStation 3′s XMB, and thanks to 1GB of RAM dedicated to system functions, will allow users to switch in and out of games and system functions fluidly.

I like that they're aiming for a reasonable price point, but I'm still worried about rumors regarding a touchscreen controller.

Sony is said to be aiming for an affordable price point and to use the same input and output devices, so you shouldn’t need a fancy new telly. The system’s OS is said to have been heavily revised since PlayStation 3′s XMB, and thanks to 1GB of RAM dedicated to system functions, will allow users to switch in and out of games and system functions fluidly.

I like that they're aiming for a reasonable price point, but I'm still worried about rumors regarding a touchscreen controller.

I have the Wii U and actually like the touch screen. If they copied Nintendo in anyway, I'd want it to be where I could play on the screen within the controller if "someone wanted to use the TV."

Guess that little goblin in my brain was right when he said we needed to start saving money. Now I understand why . . .

Sony is said to be aiming for an affordable price point and to use the same input and output devices, so you shouldn’t need a fancy new telly. The system’s OS is said to have been heavily revised since PlayStation 3′s XMB, and thanks to 1GB of RAM dedicated to system functions, will allow users to switch in and out of games and system functions fluidly.

I like that they're aiming for a reasonable price point, but I'm still worried about rumors regarding a touchscreen controller.

I have the Wii U and actually like the touch screen. If they copied Nintendo in anyway, I'd want it to be where I could play on the screen within the controller if "someone wanted to use the TV."

Guess that little goblin in my brain was right when he said we needed to start saving money. Now I understand why . . .

IIRC, the rumor in question pegs the controller for a "touch pad" not a touch screen, which would make sense to me. I don't see Sony/Microsoft following Nintendo's lead with the Wii U controller design.

At least not until the second generation of the systems go into production.

I'd be surprised if that were the case. Sony and Microsoft clearly have one eye on the gamepad experiment. But I think they did the smart thing by positioning themselves to move if it proved wildly successful, while not really investing themselves in the idea. Sony has made the case that the Vita can be used to the same end as the gamepad (if they so chose), and Microsoft seems keen on tablet integration.

A touchscreen controller would be a sizable investment that overlaps a bit too much with their existing tech, and both console makers are looking to keep console costs down, by all reports. Both Sony and Microsoft's backup plans use peripherals that would come at a separate cost (or are already owned, esp. in the case of tablets), keeping the costs optional for consumers. And that's all before we get to the fact that the Wii U is performing relatively poorly right now, and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of potential being mined out of that 2nd screen.

One thing I've heard is that they want to allow multiple users to be logged in, and to sync a user with a controller, so that you can have a 4 player game going and each person earns trophies on their individual PSN account. I think a touch screen controller will actually be good in that case, if only to keep data private.

____________________________

FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014

Thayos wrote:

I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

I think a $399 price point is about right. That's how much a low end laptop costs these days.

I gave a 4 Bens and got back only like $20 for my Wii U (bought black and Mario to go with). Between 400-500$ for a new gaming system on/around release date is a good amount imo.

But paying around $300 for a system and it's price get cut in half just a few months late..not cool. I'm looking at you 3DS. (was still worth it for all the free games they gave us, but still... they could have had the price low in the 1st place -.-)

But paying around $300 for a system and it's price get cut in half just a few months late..not cool. I'm looking at you 3DS. (was still worth it for all the free games they gave us, but still... they could have had the price low in the 1st place -.-)

Hve they even put all those games up on the eshop? i don't think they have, I dunno, if I'd realized I wouldn't be able to buy a lot of those games at all, I might have sprung for the more expensive price point to get them, since iirc there was a number I'd really like to have...

____________________________

lolgaxe wrote:

When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

But paying around $300 for a system and it's price get cut in half just a few months late..not cool. I'm looking at you 3DS. (was still worth it for all the free games they gave us, but still... they could have had the price low in the 1st place -.-)

Hve they even put all those games up on the eshop? i don't think they have, I dunno, if I'd realized I wouldn't be able to buy a lot of those games at all, I might have sprung for the more expensive price point to get them, since iirc there was a number I'd really like to have...

I'm not sure if they made it to the eshop. I only DLed the Zelda games iirc. They however are on w/e shop the Wii and Wii U can buy games from. I am glad they gave us something, but still...they could have sold it at the Now price, and people like you could have bought the games on the eShop. Money for them...

Quote:

My main concern is if they are going to implement that copy protection they were talking about that forbids you from using used games(or requires you to pay a fee to use them).

I work for a company that re-manufactures Turbos, and seeing/hearing what they deal with has changed my my views (because it is oddly similar) on the whole used game market. I'm so pro for used games now, that if Sony, Bill Gates, and Nintendo do implement a C.P that imo, it will be very bad for them. To the degree that I would boycott them. Not everyone can buy games new.

See the same issue happens in my line of work. Not everyone can afford to give thousands of dollars for a new turbo for their diesel running engine (truck, tractor, w/e). Buying a remaned one is like going out and buying a used system/game. The top companies do not really like it, because they do not see any of the "extra" money that can be made. Well actually that is a slight lie, see they can. The contract with companies like the one I work for to do the re-man job (tearing down, sorting through parts, cleaning parts, and rebuilding Turbos to be sent back) so they can then have their own line of "reman" turbos to offer to the public. The Big companies might not offer the same protection plan as they would to new ones, but the buyer could still get that "named" item at a lower price due to being used.

Sony/Gates/Nintendo have not figured out a way to get more money from places like Gamestop, or any other big re-seller of used games (Gamestop is the big one around here, and then private owned places).

Same goes for the game companies making the game. If EA can not understand that people do not find their product to be worth the full price, the they have a major issue. When people stop buying their games at full price, it only seems natural that the company will go under in due time. So what could game companies do? 2 options come to mind that I'm ok with (don't know about the rest of you). 1) Lower the **** price of games. Duh. This shouldn't even need to be explained why. 2) *Disclaimer: I am ok with this idea, for real* Make each game come with a code to unlock game play. If I sell the game, who ever buys it next will also need to buy a new Key Code. All the big game companies will need to see them plastic cards (like WoW time cards, Gamestop has a huge rack full of different game cards for all the online game out there for kids...) that give a Key Code. Scratch it off, register it online, get code..play game. This is where game companies can make their money in the used game market. The only down side is the price. What would be a fair price?

If i take a $60 game, a week old, to gamestop and they give me $20 store credit (total ******* rip off, I don't actually sell my games to gamestop. I sell to friends for decent amount), and they turn around and put it on the shelf for $55, but the Game company sells new Game Key for...10? 20?....30 (half the price of the game)? The used game companies will have a hard time selling used game... Catch 22 on this idea, but yea.

I think it would just be a very bad idea to try and cut out the used game market. I don't think it would end well for any/all the companies that would try to do some kind of C.P Lock. I mean I've sat here and re-wrote this bottom half like 5 times (sorry if it doesn't make sense). I can not think of any good point to give to the idea. If anyone has one, please share. Stopping bootleg games, is however, not a good reason to effect the rest of the "legit" people.

Personally, I was a fan of free DLC when buying new copies of games. The used gaming market is good for everyone, I believe, and this method rewards those that buy new games. I bought a lot of used games in the past because they cost $15+ less and the new copy rarely offered any additional incentive... maybe an instruction manual? I was never a fan of having a code to activate a game though. Gamestop would just start even paying less for the games, price them slightly lower, and then offer a scratch-off code along with the used copy.

In the end though, I think within the next 5 years, this used games for current titles will be a thing of the past for one very good reason: the internet.

I recently moved to PC gaming. In roughly a year, I've racked up over 200 games (some big names, some indie, some freebies, etc.), but I never bought a single physical copy of those games. I think consoles will move in this direction. You can already buy/download games online, but it's still much more common to buy a game disc. Internet speeds and bandwidth are increasing (slowly around the US, anyway) and a huge majority of console owners already have internet, making this a viable system. I don't believe the physical disc will be eliminated in the next 5 years, but there will be a huge shift to digital copies.

Steam's console probably won't be a huge success, at first, but I do think it'll have a substantial effect on how consoles are done. Developers will notice that every person that buys a digital copy will mean possibly one less "used" copy and in order to shift everyone to buying digital games, we'll start seeing more Steam-like sales for digital content for all systems. Of course, not everyone can afford internet or $60 games and many people see no reason to keep a game longer than it takes to complete. The first group is why discs won't be eliminated for a long time. The latter group - those that really drive the used gaming market - might end up being constantly hassled over the next few years by bullsh*t policies and a majority of them will be picked up by Gamefly or some sort of temporary gaming service.

Overall, I think used games is a very small problem. DRM, bootleg copies, and pirating is a much, much bigger issue in my opinion. Many companies probably believe the solution to this is exactly the same: the internet. As we've seen though, everyone seems to hate this solution. Diablo 3 launch was a disaster, I haven't been hearing anything good about the new Sim City, and Ubisoft has already backed down with their ridiculous DRM system.

Also worth mentioning is OnLive and that new nVidia grid service. These eliminate the need to download/install a game, imposes DRM (since you don't actually own any thing), and removes the physical copy so it can not be resold. I don't know if this type of system will become popular among gamers (I don't care for it), but it certainly is another direction gaming could take in the years to come.

I really wish they'd do more incentivizing new purchases instead of punishing used purchases. Bonus character skins, neat starter weapons (that should be replaceable after a fairly short time into gameplay), bonus EXP for online play if that's the system they have, and so on. A suggestion I made in another thread would be for Sony/Microsoft to buy back used copies for points/credits/whatever on their services at a rate competitive with trade-ins at a GameStop. Kick some back to the publishers, repackage some used games as "certified pre-owned" and include some of the new purchase bonuses with them.

Either that or they're going to have to allow new copies to drop in price and go on sale at similar rates to online distribution systems.

There is a reason I buy consoles. By requiring internet connection whenever you want to play a game throws that reason out the window. Time will tell if that is just a rumor or has Microsoft lost their **** mind.

Spoonless wrote:

I really wish they'd do more incentivizing new purchases instead of punishing used purchases. Bonus character skins, neat starter weapons (that should be replaceable after a fairly short time into gameplay), bonus EXP for online play if that's the system they have, and so on. A suggestion I made in another thread would be for Sony/Microsoft to buy back used copies for points/credits/whatever on their services at a rate competitive with trade-ins at a GameStop. Kick some back to the publishers, repackage some used games as "certified pre-owned" and include some of the new purchase bonuses with them.

Either that or they're going to have to allow new copies to drop in price and go on sale at similar rates to online distribution systems.

While my view on used games getting shafted with this next console cycle is indifference I feel as though this is probably one of the better ideas that has been brought up.

Ill gobble up a new playstation as long as Sony opts to not follow MS plan of one game for one console. I like to lend my games to friends, borrow games etc. I like to return used stale games for trade value on newer games. If I am unable to do this then the video game market won't see me as a future customer or I might have to jump to the Wii U.

If MS goes through with this though they are essentially bowing out of the gaming industry imo. If Sony follows suit they are delusional.

If one does it the other will follow suit. I understand why they would do it also. To cut back on used games and to encourage people to shop on their marketplace. The big issue I have with it is that the US has a rather mediocre internet. Sure in larger communities, especially along the coasts, internet is a complete non-issue. The problem lies with there is a large portion of the US that either has limited internet access or non at all. I am also sure that there are people who may have a xbox and some games but cannot afford the monthly internet bill but how much of the gaming community is like that I have no clue.

The only way I will not have an issue with consoles being always online to play is if there are massive improvements to our internet infrastructure. Until that happens I am staunchly against it.

If one does it the other will follow suit. I understand why they would do it also. To cut back on used games and to encourage people to shop on their marketplace. The big issue I have with it is that the US has a rather mediocre internet. Sure in larger communities, especially along the coasts, internet is a complete non-issue. The problem lies with there is a large portion of the US that either has limited internet access or non at all. I am also sure that there are people who may have a xbox and some games but cannot afford the monthly internet bill but how much of the gaming community is like that I have no clue.

The only way I will not have an issue with consoles being always online to play is if there are massive improvements to our internet infrastructure. Until that happens I am staunchly against it.

To be fair, if they can deliver the same content digitally for less (like Steam) then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I like saving money on video games.

____________________________

"I have lost my way But I hear a tale About a heaven in Alberta Where they've got all **** for a basement"

To be fair, if they can deliver the same content digitally for less (like Steam) then I wouldn't have a problem with it. I like saving money on video games.

So you would be ok with playing a game like Halo: Will Never Die by yourself, having your internet decide to go down for whatever reason, and then getting booted from your single player game because of it?

People wanted heads to roll with D3 requiring a constant internet connection and that at least made sense since they had a RMAH attached to the game. I am honestly surprised on the apathy towards this. Maybe I am horribly out of the anger loop.

So you would be ok with playing a game like Halo: Will Never Die by yourself, having your internet decide to go down for whatever reason, and then getting booted from your single player game because of it?

People wanted heads to roll with D3 requiring a constant internet connection and that at least made sense since they had a RMAH attached to the game. I am honestly surprised on the apathy towards this. Maybe I am horribly out of the anger loop.

I'm down with the annoying thing, makes plenty sense. Conversely though, I have several older games I can't play because I lost the stupid 20-character long gibberish code I have to enter when I install the game. Damned if you do, damned if you don't or something. Just as a general "why the connected thing doesn't get me into a rage." If they want to take the consul (cousel, consul, consel... ) gaming the same direction, meh, so be it.